Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T16:44:39.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Dynamic Approach to Managing Contradictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Wendy K. Smith
Wendy K. Smith*
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
*
E-mail: smithw@lerner.udel.edu, Address: 203 Alfred Lerner Hall, Lerner College of Business and Economics, Newark, DE 19716
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 338 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (Forthcoming). Exploration-exploitation tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science.Google Scholar
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 305–337.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01154.xGoogle Scholar
Denison, D., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6, 524–540.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Westcott, B. (1988). Paradoxical demands and the creation of excellence: The case of just in time manufacturing. In Quinn, R. & Cameron, K. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 19–54). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.Google Scholar
Gilbert, C. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 741–763.10.5465/amj.2005.18803920Google Scholar
Gilbert, C. (2006). Change in the presence of residual fit: Can competing frames co-exist? Organization Science, 17, 150–167.10.1287/orsc.1050.0160Google Scholar
Gittell, J. H. (2003). The Southwest Airlines way: Using the power of relationships to achieve high performance. McGraw-Hill Companies.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1988). Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 370–387.10.2307/2392714Google Scholar
Leonard-Barton, D. A. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.10.1002/smj.4250131009Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760–776.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. In A. P. Brief & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 185–206; Elsevier.10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002Google Scholar
Osono, E., Shimizu, N., & Takeuchi, H. (2008). Extreme Toyota: Radical contradictions that drive success at the world's best manufacturer. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Son.Google Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562–578.10.2307/258559Google Scholar
Putnam, L. (1986). Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. In Thayer, L. (Ed.), Organization communications: Emerging perspectives (pp. 151–167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralization, decentralization and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6), 650–669.10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24840Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.10.1287/orsc.1050.0134Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In Smith, C., Atkinson, J., McClelland, D., & Verof, J. (Eds.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393–400). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511527937.028Google Scholar
Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 119–142.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<119::AID-SMJ921>3.0.CO;2-03.0.CO;2-0>Google Scholar
Yates, R. (1998). The Kikkoman chronicles: A global company with a Japanese soul. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar